Griffiths - The Role of Cognitive Bias and Skill in Fruit Machine Gambling Flashcards
3 Hypotheses
- No difference in objective measures of skill between regular and non-regular gamblers
- Regular gamblers produce more irrational verbalisations than non-regular gamblers
- Regular and non-regular gamblers will view the skill of fruit machine playing differently.
Aim
To examine cognitive biases in gambling behaviour.
The study examines the behaviour of regular and non-regular gamblers when playing on fruit machines.
Sample
60 participants
44 males, 16 females
23.4 mean years
30 regular gamblers, 30 non-regular gamblers
29 males, 1 female - RG: Gamble once a week or more. Mean age 21.6
15 males, 15 females - NRG: Gamble once a month or less.
From Plymouth, Devon
All participants had gambled once in their life
Volunteer sample
Experimental method and design
Observation
Semi-structured interview
Content analysis of qualitative data
Quantitative measures
Length of time gambling on fruit machine
Number of wins
Qualitative measures
Verbalisations in “thinking aloud” groups.
This was transformed into quantitative data using content analysis.
A coding scheme was used to put utterances into categories, these were tallied and analysed (calculated as a percentage of total utterances, and analysed using t-tests).
31 different categories. 4 irrational, 27 rational.
High Ecological Validity
High
~conducted in a real amusement arcade, therefore natural environment
~used regular and non-regular gamblers therefore IV occurred naturally
~used real fruit machines and money to gamble
How were participants recruited?
Via adverts in local universities and colleges.
Regular gamblers recruited through a regular gambler known to the researcher.
What were the controls in this study?
All participants had played on a fruit machine at least once before.
Used same fruit machine to make it a fair test so that other diced through the use of other machine could not influence the results.
Confounding variables
Verbalisations were transcribed and categorised by the researcher who was not blind to the hypotheses.
How is this study useful?
- The knowledge of irrational thought processes may be a help in rehabilitating “gambling addicts” through cognitive behavioural therapy.
- Can be used to help “problem gamblers” change the way they think and behave (recognise and change cognitive bias)
Reliability and Validity of this study
The categorisation of the participants utterances were specific to the gambling context, which was only observed by the researcher. Therefore the reliability and validity is unknown.
Generalisability of this study
- The sample is male biased, therefore it is not clear how much the findings can be generalised to females.
However, fruit machine gambling is very male-dominated so it is not surprising that only one female regular gambler was recruited. - Lacks generalisability to other forms of gambling eg. horse racing or roulette.
Limitations of study
- It uses self report methods which may not reflect the participants real thoughts and views.
- It uses semi-structured interviews which are flexible, but open-ended questions are harder to analyse than structured interviews.
- Even though observational method has high ecological validity it is difficult to replicate.
Method
Quasi-experiment due to naturally occurring IV.
2 groups of participants.
IV: regular/non-regular gambler
DV: thought processes and behaviours
How were the results measured?
Cognitive activity = measured by thinking aloud
Perception of skill = measured by post-experiment semi-structured interview
What was the procedure?
- Each participant given £3 to gamble on the fruit machines
- This gave 30 free gambles
- Researchers requested for them to complete a minimum of 60 gambles. If so they could keep their winnings or continue gambling.
Thinking aloud condition - specific procedure.
- Half of the participants in each group were randomly assigned to the thinking aloud condition
- Given instructions in regards to verbalisations:
~ say everything that goes through your mind, do not censor thoughts
~ keep talking as continuously as possible
~ speak clearly
~ do not worry about speaking in complete sentences
~ do not try to justify thoughts
The thinking aloud method consists of verbalising every thought that passes through your mind when you are playing therefore it is important to remember the above in order to achieve more reliable and valid results.
Similarities in results
RG & NRG has similar playing times.
RG & NRG both used more rational than irrational verbalisations.
RG & NRG showed similar skill level
Difference in Results
Behavioural:
- RG has a higher playing rate per minute (8)than NRG (6).
- RG spent more time on the fruit machine.
- More RG (10) carried on until they lost all their money, than NRG (2).
Cognitive:
- RG produced significantly more irrational verbalisations than non-regular gamblers.
- RG personified the machine more than NRG.
2 Irrational Verbalisations Examples
“This fruity is not in a good mood”
“It wants its money back”
Conclusions:
- Findings support the hypotheses…
~ The difference between RG & NRG is most likely cognitive rather than down to skill
~ RG process information differently and believe there is more skill involved than there actually is
~ RG are slightly more more skilful eg. knowing the reels and when to nudge
~ Gamblers know they will lose but they play WITH money not FOR it (the objective is to stay on the machine)
~ RG make more irrational verbalisations demonstrating cognitive bias
Name 3 Changes to this study.
- Add another observer
- Change the sample
- Gamble with your own money
IV
Regular and non-regular gamblers
DV
Thought processes and behaviours
Low Ecological validity
Did not use own money, given £3 to gamble with.
‘Thinking aloud condition’ had verbalisations recorded on lapel microphone, not something they would normally have done.
Asked to be in thinking aloud/not thinking aloud condition, therefore encourage unnatural behaviour.
May not usually choose to gamble on a fruit skill machine.
3 examples of irrational verbalisations
“The machine likes me” - personification
“I lost there because I wasn’t concentrating” - explaining away losses
“You bastard” - swearing at the fruit machine
RG - total % irrational verbalisations = 14%
NRG - 2.5%
